Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Ed Leafe wrote: On May 25, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Denis Makogon wrote: Correct me if i'm wrong, none of the messages above were stating about support Go-extensions for Python (C extensions were mentioned couple times). Starting Go v1.5 it is possible to develop extension

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On May 25, 2016, at 7:25 AM, Denis Makogon wrote: > Correct me if i'm wrong, none of the messages above were stating about > support Go-extensions for Python (C extensions were mentioned couple times). > Starting Go v1.5 it is possible to develop extension for Python [1]

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On May 25, 2016, at 7:09 PM, Adrian Otto wrote: > In order to evolve, OpenStack must allow alternatives. A tautology, for sure, and it certainly doesn’t require changing languages in order to evolve. All sorts of alternative approaches can bring about evolution.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

> On May 25, 2016, at 12:43 PM, Ben Swartzlander wrote: > > On 05/25/2016 06:48 AM, Sean Dague wrote: >> I've been watching the threads, trying to digest, and find the way's >> this is getting sliced doesn't quite slice the way I've been thinking >> about it. (which might

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

My responses are inline and to question 5, which, like you, I think is the key. On 25 May 2016, at 3:48, Sean Dague wrote: > I've been watching the threads, trying to digest, and find the way's > this is getting sliced doesn't quite slice the way I've been thinking > about it. (which might just

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On 05/25/2016 06:48 AM, Sean Dague wrote: I've been watching the threads, trying to digest, and find the way's this is getting sliced doesn't quite slice the way I've been thinking about it. (which might just means I've been thinking about it wrong). However, here is my current set of thoughts

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

+1. very good discussion. From: Sean Dague [s...@dague.net] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 3:48 AM To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack" I've been watching the threa

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Excerpts from Flavio Percoco's message of 2016-05-25 13:21:49 +0200: > On 25/05/16 06:48 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: > > [snip] > > >4. Do we want to be in the business of building data plane services that > >will all run into python limitations, and will all need to be rewritten > >in another

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

y: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) > <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Date: May 24, 2016 at 11:35:42 > To: openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> > Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Hello to All. This message is not about arguing weather OpenStack needs Go and other language. This is a good discussion. So, the main question here is "Go along with Python for OpenStack" and the problem is to support Go code starting for necessity of skilled Go developers to infrastructure for

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On 25/05/16 06:48 -0400, Sean Dague wrote: [snip] 4. Do we want to be in the business of building data plane services that will all run into python limitations, and will all need to be rewritten in another language? This is a slightly different spin on the question Thierry is asking. Control

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

I've been watching the threads, trying to digest, and find the way's this is getting sliced doesn't quite slice the way I've been thinking about it. (which might just means I've been thinking about it wrong). However, here is my current set of thoughts on things. 1. Should OpenStack be open to

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Tue, May 24 2016, Fox, Kevin M wrote: > For recent example, there has been a lot of talk about reimplementing features > from Barbican in Magnum, Keystone, etc, and not wanting to depend on Barbican. > In the pre-tent days, we'd just fix Barbican to do the things we all need it > to, and then

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

> On May 24, 2016, at 12:09 PM, Mike Perez wrote: > > On 12:24 May 24, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> Morgan Fainberg wrote: >>> [...] If we are accepting golang, I want it to be clearly >>> documented that the expectation is it is used exclusively where there is >>> a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

ack.org <openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack" > On 05/24/2016 06:19 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Chris Dent wrote: > >> [...] > >> I don't really know. I'm firmly in the camp that OpenStack nee

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

t:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack" > On 05/24/2016 06:19 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > Chris Dent wrote: > >> [...] > >> I don't really know. I'm firmly in the camp that OpenStack needs to > >> be smaller and more

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On 12:24 May 24, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Morgan Fainberg wrote: > >[...] If we are accepting golang, I want it to be clearly > >documented that the expectation is it is used exclusively where there is > >a demonstrable case (such as with swift) and not a carte blanche to use > >it

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

usage questions)<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Date: May 23, 2016 at 15:23:32 To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)<openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack" Sean Dague wr

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

t;openstack-dev@lists.openstack.org> Subject:  Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack" > Sean Dague wrote: > > On 05/23/2016 03:34 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote: > >> On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >>> Excer

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On 05/24/2016 06:19 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: Chris Dent wrote: [...] I don't really know. I'm firmly in the camp that OpenStack needs to be smaller and more tightly focused if a unitary thing called OpenStack expects to be any good. So I'm curious about and interested in strategies for

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

From: Geoff O'Callaghan Sent: Monday, May 23, 2016 5:59:13 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack" Surely openstack is defined by it’s capabilities and interfaces rather

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On 05/24/2016 11:13 AM, Dean Troyer wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Flavio Percoco > wrote: > > So, just to make sure I'm making myself clear, I believe we should > go with > option #2 in Thierry's comment from May 23 11:3 on

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 8:20 AM, Flavio Percoco wrote: > > So, just to make sure I'm making myself clear, I believe we should go with > option #2 in Thierry's comment from May 23 11:3 on this[0] review. While > I'm not > entirely opposed to #1 I think #2 is better for us at

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On 23/05/16 21:57 +0100, Chris Dent wrote: [snip] So, yet another way to frame the original question (in a loaded way) may be: Are we trying to come up with a way of defining the community that lets us carry on doing what we've been doing, haphazardly, or are we trying to get the process of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Excerpts from Geoff O'Callaghan's message of 2016-05-24 15:31:28 +1000: > > > On 24 May 2016, at 3:13 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > > > [snip] > > > those other needs. Grab a python developer, land some code, and your > > feature is there. > > s/python/whateverlanguage/ >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On 24 May 2016 at 02:28, Gregory Haynes wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 05:24 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > > I really do not want to "special case" swift. It really doesn't go with > the spirit of inclusion. > > > I am not sure how inclusion is related to special casing.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

+1 ttx. ("I'd prefer if we didn't have to special-case anyone") -- Dims On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 6:24 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Morgan Fainberg wrote: >> >> [...] If we are accepting golang, I want it to be clearly >> documented that the expectation is it is used

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Tue, 24 May 2016, Thierry Carrez wrote: Chris Dent wrote: So that, of course, leads back to the original question: Is OpenStack supposed to be a unitary. As a data point, since I heard that question rhetorically asked quite a few times over the past year... There is an old answer to that,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Morgan Fainberg wrote: [...] If we are accepting golang, I want it to be clearly documented that the expectation is it is used exclusively where there is a demonstrable case (such as with swift) and not a carte blanche to use it wherever-you-please. I want this to be a social contract looked

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Chris Dent wrote: [...] I don't really know. I'm firmly in the camp that OpenStack needs to be smaller and more tightly focused if a unitary thing called OpenStack expects to be any good. So I'm curious about and interested in strategies for figuring out where the boundaries are. So that, of

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

> On 24 May 2016, at 3:13 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > [snip] > those other needs. Grab a python developer, land some code, and your > feature is there. s/python/whateverlanguage/ > >> I also never said, ship the source code and say ‘good luck’. What I did >> imply was,

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Excerpts from Geoff O'Callaghan's message of 2016-05-24 14:34:46 +1000: > > > On 24 May 2016, at 2:04 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > > > Excerpts from Geoff O'Callaghan's message of 2016-05-24 10:59:13 +1000: > >> Surely openstack is defined by it’s capabilities and interfaces

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

> On 24 May 2016, at 2:04 PM, Clint Byrum wrote: > > Excerpts from Geoff O'Callaghan's message of 2016-05-24 10:59:13 +1000: >> Surely openstack is defined by it’s capabilities and interfaces rather than >> it’s internals. Given the simplistic view that openstack is a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Excerpts from Geoff O'Callaghan's message of 2016-05-24 10:59:13 +1000: > Surely openstack is defined by it’s capabilities and interfaces rather than > it’s internals. Given the simplistic view that openstack is a collection of > micro services connected by well defined api’s does it really

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 05:24 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Gregory Haynes > wrote: > > On Fri, May 20, 2016, at 07:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > John

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Surely openstack is defined by it’s capabilities and interfaces rather than it’s internals. Given the simplistic view that openstack is a collection of micro services connected by well defined api’s does it really matter what code is used inside that micro service (or macro service )? If

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Tue, May 24, 2016 at 12:28 AM, Gregory Haynes wrote: > On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 05:24 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Gregory Haynes > wrote: > > On Fri, May 20, 2016, at 07:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > John

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 05:24 PM, Morgan Fainberg wrote: > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Gregory Haynes > wrote: >> On Fri, May 20, 2016, at 07:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: >> > John Dickinson wrote: >> > > [...] >> > >> So the real question we need to answer is...

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Mon, May 23, 2016 at 2:57 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016, at 07:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > John Dickinson wrote: > > > [...] > > >> So the real question we need to answer is... where does OpenStack > > >> stop, and where does the wider open source

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Fri, May 20, 2016, at 07:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > John Dickinson wrote: > > [...] > >> So the real question we need to answer is... where does OpenStack > >> stop, and where does the wider open source community start ? If > >> OpenStack is purely an "integration engine", glue code for

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 02:57 PM, Sean Dague wrote: > On 05/23/2016 03:34 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote: > > > > On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > >> Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-23 17:07:36 +0100: > >>> On Mon, 23 May 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Mon, 23 May 2016, Gregory Haynes wrote: Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-20 14:16:15 +0100: I don't think language does (or should) have anything to do with it. The question is whether or not the tool (whether service or dependent library) is useful to and usable outside the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Sean Dague wrote: On 05/23/2016 03:34 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote: On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-23 17:07:36 +0100: On Mon, 23 May 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-20 14:16:15 +0100:

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On 05/23/2016 03:34 PM, Gregory Haynes wrote: > > On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: >> Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-23 17:07:36 +0100: >>> On Mon, 23 May 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-20 14:16:15 +0100: > I

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Mon, May 23, 2016, at 11:48 AM, Doug Hellmann wrote: > Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-23 17:07:36 +0100: > > On Mon, 23 May 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > > Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-20 14:16:15 +0100: > > >> I don't think language does (or should) have

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-23 17:07:36 +0100: > On Mon, 23 May 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote: > > Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-20 14:16:15 +0100: > >> I don't think language does (or should) have anything to do with it. > >> > >> The question is whether or not the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Mon, 23 May 2016, Doug Hellmann wrote: Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-20 14:16:15 +0100: I don't think language does (or should) have anything to do with it. The question is whether or not the tool (whether service or dependent library) is useful to and usable outside the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Excerpts from Chris Dent's message of 2016-05-20 14:16:15 +0100: > On Fri, 20 May 2016, Thierry Carrez wrote: > > > The other approach is product-centric: "lower-level pieces are OpenStack > > dependencies, rather than OpenStack itself". If we are missing a > > lower-level > > piece to achieve

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 8:16 AM, Chris Dent wrote: > I don't think language does (or should) have anything to do with it. > ^1024 Language is what finally forced this discussion (as a prerequisite), now that we're here, lets finish the prerequisite before going back

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 7:48 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > The other approach is product-centric: "lower-level pieces are OpenStack > dependencies, rather than OpenStack itself". If we are missing a > lower-level piece to achieve our mission and are developing it as a

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Fri, 20 May 2016, Thierry Carrez wrote: The other approach is product-centric: "lower-level pieces are OpenStack dependencies, rather than OpenStack itself". If we are missing a lower-level piece to achieve our mission and are developing it as a result, it could be developed on OpenStack

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

John Dickinson wrote: [...] In the same vein, if we consider lower-level projects (which often require such native optimization) as part of "OpenStack", rather than as external open source projects that should be integrated by "OpenStack", then we need a language like golang in our toolbelt.

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

. From: Joshua Harlow [harlo...@fastmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2016 3:01 PM To: OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions) Subject: Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack" Morgan Fainberg wrote: > > > On Thu, May 19, 2016

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

John Dickinson wrote: summary: * Defining the scope of OpenStack projects DOES NOT define the languages needed to implement them. The considerations are orthogonal. * We've already defined OpenStack--it's whatever it takes to fulfill its mission statement. On 19 May 2016, at

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

Morgan Fainberg wrote: On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Thierry Carrez > wrote: Hi everyone, The discussion on the addition of golang focuses on estimating community costs vs. technical benefits, so that the TC can make the

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

summary: * Defining the scope of OpenStack projects DOES NOT define the languages needed to implement them. The considerations are orthogonal. * We've already defined OpenStack--it's whatever it takes to fulfill its mission statement. On 19 May 2016, at 6:19, Thierry Carrez wrote: >

Re: [openstack-dev] [all][tc] Languages vs. Scope of "OpenStack"

On Thu, May 19, 2016 at 6:19 AM, Thierry Carrez wrote: > Hi everyone, > > The discussion on the addition of golang focuses on estimating community > costs vs. technical benefits, so that the TC can make the right call for > "OpenStack". From that discussion, we established